Re: Mutt 1.1.9 about 3-4x slower than mutt 1.0 (was Re: [Announce] mutt-1.1.9 is out - RELEASE CANDIDATE!)

[David DeSimone]

Eric Boehm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Yes, across NFS.  I copied the file to a local drive and ran both
> mutts.  The time was about the same (1.8 sec).  Both mutts were also
> run from a local drive.

Mutt wants to use fcntl-locking on the file.  This forces NFS to use a
non-caching mode, where all I/O is transfered directly to/from the
server, instead of being cached on the local system.  This slows things
down, but it is also very safe.

If you were to configure with --disable-fcntl, things would speed up,
but it would also be unsafe.  There could be conditions in which the
mail server tries to update your mail spool while Mutt is also trying to
update it, leading to mailbox corruption.  Using the correct locking
protocols would avoid this, although it would slow things down.

-- 
David DeSimone   | "The doctrine of human equality reposes on this:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]   |  that there is no man really clever who has not
Hewlett-Packard  |  found that he is stupid." -- Gilbert K. Chesterson
UX WTEC Engineer |    PGP: 5B 47 34 9F 3B 9A B0 0D  AB A6 15 F1 BB BE 8C 44